If you want to talk about Ben Cousins, post it here (mega merged thread)

[AnnieH]

I have found an Act in which the West Coast Eagles are in breach;

LAYBY ACT 2007

Section 25 Duty of Care
snip

Brilliant.

[NMWBloods]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahaha

So you think Cousins' case will go to the High Court because the Eagles sacked him under revised contract conditions of his behaviour?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahaha

Obviously common law is a bit beyond you...

[Guzzitza]

Seeing's that you know exactly WTF he's talking about, do you care to enlighten the rest of us?

Here. I'll make it really easy for you. Finish this sentence.

Disgraced ex-west coast eagles fallen star ben cousins is owed "duty of care" by his former club because ....

In short, because they over-looked his past discretions and continued to provide him with an environment that fostered his drug addiction, and overlooked his personal problems because he was an important player, and therefore put the interests of the club (winnings games and having a popular poster-boy) ahead of the health of one of their employees.


Heres the long-winded non-sensical version though.. I just handed in a thesis so yeah...brain is fried.

The reason this is a difficult debate is that duty of care is not something you can concretely prove/disprove. There is no list of things you can tick off to determine wether duty of care has been breached. In general (from my experience with the medical duty of care requirements), the idea is you are acting in the best interests of the other party to minimise potential harm. In this case, West Coast should act in a way that is the best for both West Coast the club, and Ben Cousins, their employee.

It could be said West Coast have not acted in the best interests of their employee for two key reasons. The first is the fact they sacked him. Yes, it APPEARS he has broken the rules of a contract we haven't even seen. However, no charges have been proven in court yet, the drug charge was bogus. It can be said, that by sacking Cousins before getting any real information about what has occured, the club acted purely in their own interest of self preservation, and had no consideration for Ben. You may notice that in all the interviews they said how by sacking him, they were acting in the BEST interest of Ben so he could get healthy... thats because of duty of care. They need to make it explicit that in sacking him, they have considered his interests, and have decided this is best, and they will continue to support his re-habilitation ( Ie. continue to honour they duty of care to their employee).


However, in my mind, the main issue of duty of care is not related to the sacking, but rather the years before this. There is a reason why almost every article about this saga talks about how West Coast could let the drug problem at their club get this bad, its because it suggests they have breached their duty of care over the years. They have put football, before the health of their players. If West Coast knew about all these problems, and it appears they did, they had a duty of care to step in a long time ago - and they didnt. That, is a breach in duty of care to your employee. Putting your own interests ahead of the best interests of your emplooyee, which leads to their harm.

[Chow-Chicker]

Obviously common law is a bit beyond you...

I think it's too far in front of you. You are merely kidding yourself if he has any grounds whatsoever.

[Layby]

Oh dear, without naming names;

Sometimes, when you are wrong, it is best just to let it go.

Rather than carry on jabbering in the hope that people will forget that you have made a bit of a fool of yourself.

We have all been wrong, the world will go on.

Thank you for your time

[AnnieH]

Thanks Guzzita. Makes perfect sense.

[NMWBloods]

I think it's too far in front of you. You are merely kidding yourself if he has any grounds whatsoever.

You still don't get it!

[swantastic]

I cannot speak for Layby but I would consider it likely that the club and the AFL would owe Cousins a common law duty of care in addition to any statutory obligation. This is the duty of care which I was talking about. Please provide evidence of the WA legislature's intention to cover the field in this regard before you start laughing, or the joke may be on you.

If you think they owe Benny a duty of care,which IMO is a load of rubbish because he new the new contract terms.

Would a company that sacked me owe me a duty of care,because they thought i stole money from petty cash.They had no proof but that i was one of the last two people seen in the office,the other being the leading hand.

So there fore assumed it was me and they never took me aside to ask me all they did was just sack me.So in your humble opinion do the owe me?

[swantastic]

Have you read the case law?

I have never said that WCE have breached their duty of care to Cousins, just that they owe him one. Additionally, they may breach it, but the breach may never cause damage and hence there would be no cause of action. Read the cases, and if you still don't get it, come back with a few questions.

Please explain? ..Why do you think that,they have looked after him for years and after all his indiscretions they had just had enough,like any employer they had to cut there losses in their position.

[Chow-Chicker]

In short, because they over-looked his past discretions and continued to provide him with an environment that fostered his drug addiction, and overlooked his personal problems because he was an important player, and therefore put the interests of the club (winnings games and having a popular poster-boy) ahead of the health of one of their employees.


Heres the long-winded non-sensical version though.. I just handed in a thesis so yeah...brain is fried.

The reason this is a difficult debate is that duty of care is not something you can concretely prove/disprove. There is no list of things you can tick off to determine wether duty of care has been breached. In general (from my experience with the medical duty of care requirements), the idea is you are acting in the best interests of the other party to minimise potential harm. In this case, West Coast should act in a way that is the best for both West Coast the club, and Ben Cousins, their employee.

It could be said West Coast have not acted in the best interests of their employee for two key reasons. The first is the fact they sacked him. Yes, it APPEARS he has broken the rules of a contract we haven't even seen. However, no charges have been proven in court yet, the drug charge was bogus. It can be said, that by sacking Cousins before getting any real information about what has occured, the club acted purely in their own interest of self preservation, and had no consideration for Ben. You may notice that in all the interviews they said how by sacking him, they were acting in the BEST interest of Ben so he could get healthy... thats because of duty of care. They need to make it explicit that in sacking him, they have considered his interests, and have decided this is best, and they will continue to support his re-habilitation ( Ie. continue to honour they duty of care to their employee).


However, in my mind, the main issue of duty of care is not related to the sacking, but rather the years before this. There is a reason why almost every article about this saga talks about how West Coast could let the drug problem at their club get this bad, its because it suggests they have breached their duty of care over the years. They have put football, before the health of their players. If West Coast knew about all these problems, and it appears they did, they had a duty of care to step in a long time ago - and they didnt. That, is a breach in duty of care to your employee. Putting your own interests ahead of the best interests of your emplooyee, which leads to their harm.

At last, someone with a decent discussion about the topic. It has taken just one post from yourself as opposed to dozens of nothing posts by Layby.

However, Guzzitza, WC duty of care towards Ben Cousins insofar as to protect his health surely only relates to the practicability to control his environment. If Ben Cousins were to get addicted while illegal activities were being undertaken within the WCE operations, then yes, undoubtedly WCE failed in their duty of care to provide Ben Cousins a workplace that is safe and without risks to health. However, if Ben Cousins became addicted while out partying with friends outside of WC control, then I cannot see how they can be held accountable to Ben Cousins conduct and wellbeing.

As for the duty of care to provide ongoing rehabilitation, I see that if Ben Cousins got injured or became ill as a result of performing his duties for WCE, then naturally they have an obligation to Ben under the WorkCover legislation. However, if Ben became ill as a result of his own conduct outside of WC's control and the WorkCover system, then WC do not have a duty of care for ongoing treatment or rehabilitation. The fact they they are is a matter of "good will".

But you are quite right. There is nothing straight forward in proving or disproving "duty of care". Everyone seems to ignore Ben's own duty of care to himself, his club and the league for the damage caused by his conduct.

[swantastic]

Yeah, those High Court judges don't know a lot - perhaps they should have a chat to you to get some good learning' into 'em...

That's the smartest thing i have heard you say NMW,and your right because those tossas give way to many lenient sentences and are out of touch with society.

[Guzzitza]

If you think they owe Benny a duty of care,which IMO is a load of rubbish because he new the new contract terms.

Would a company that sacked me owe me a duty of care,because they thought i stole money from petty cash.They had no proof but that i was one of the last two people seen in the office,the other being the leading hand.

So there fore assumed it was me and they never took me aside to ask me all they did was just sack me.So in your humble opinion do the owe me?

There is a difference between the contract, and the general law of duty of care. I dont know the details of the contract, no one does. Your example is not similar to the Cousins sitauation. However, I would say in your example that would be cause for unfair dismissal, given it may have been someone else. I'd check your IR laws as that would apply. It would only be a breach of duty of care from your employer, if somehow your work turned you into a clepto maniac, which they knew about, decided to ignore, and then when you stole something from them, they fired you. .... See how its different?

[goswannie14]

In short, because they over-looked his past discretions and continued to provide him with an environment that fostered his drug addiction, and overlooked his personal problems because he was an important player, and therefore put the interests of the club (winnings games and having a popular poster-boy) ahead of the health of one of their employees.


Heres the long-winded non-sensical version though.. I just handed in a thesis so yeah...brain is fried.

The reason this is a difficult debate is that duty of care is not something you can concretely prove/disprove. There is no list of things you can tick off to determine wether duty of care has been breached. In general (from my experience with the medical duty of care requirements), the idea is you are acting in the best interests of the other party to minimise potential harm. In this case, West Coast should act in a way that is the best for both West Coast the club, and Ben Cousins, their employee.

It could be said West Coast have not acted in the best interests of their employee for two key reasons. The first is the fact they sacked him. Yes, it APPEARS he has broken the rules of a contract we haven't even seen. However, no charges have been proven in court yet, the drug charge was bogus. It can be said, that by sacking Cousins before getting any real information about what has occured, the club acted purely in their own interest of self preservation, and had no consideration for Ben. You may notice that in all the interviews they said how by sacking him, they were acting in the BEST interest of Ben so he could get healthy... thats because of duty of care. They need to make it explicit that in sacking him, they have considered his interests, and have decided this is best, and they will continue to support his re-habilitation ( Ie. continue to honour they duty of care to their employee).


However, in my mind, the main issue of duty of care is not related to the sacking, but rather the years before this. There is a reason why almost every article about this saga talks about how West Coast could let the drug problem at their club get this bad, its because it suggests they have breached their duty of care over the years. They have put football, before the health of their players. If West Coast knew about all these problems, and it appears they did, they had a duty of care to step in a long time ago - and they didnt. That, is a breach in duty of care to your employee. Putting your own interests ahead of the best interests of your emplooyee, which leads to their harm.

It took wading through 7 pages to finally get some sense, thanks Guzzitza.

[Guzzitza]

At last, someone with a decent discussion about the topic. It has taken just one post from yourself as opposed to dozens of nothing posts by Layby.

However, Guzzitza, WC duty of care towards Ben Cousins insofar as to protect his health surely only relates to the practicability to control his environment. If Ben Cousins were to get addicted while illegal activities were being undertaken within the WCE operations, then yes, undoubtedly WCE failed in their duty of care to provide Ben Cousins a workplace that is safe and without risks to health. However, if Ben Cousins became addicted while out partying with friends outside of WC control, then I cannot see how they can be held accountable to Ben Cousins conduct and wellbeing.

As for the duty of care to provide ongoing rehabilitation, I see that if Ben Cousins got injured or became ill as a result of performing his duties for WCE, then naturally they have an obligation to Ben under the WorkCover legislation. However, if Ben became ill as a result of his own conduct outside of WC's control and the WorkCover system, then WC do not have a duty of care for ongoing treatment or rehabilitation. The fact they they are is a matter of "good will".

I suppose its a matter of where we draw the line of the responsibilites of the clubs. Even if the drug use is happening during a players free time, it is, to an extent, the responsibility of the club to do something. Even if you get addicted while aprtying with friends, if the club is aware of this problem, but then lets you play anyway (which would be bad foy our health) and keeps paying you and giving you all that status without forcing you to undertake re-hab or whatever then I think thats a neglect of duty of care.

In terms of the duty of care AFTER he has been sacked, well that sort of hinges on the first duty of care issue. If we consider that WC did all they could to help Cousins and met their duty of care when he was an employee with them, you'd think they arent under any obligation to continue after sacking him. That is, they did all they could, Ben's problem isnt a product of only WC's doing, so WC doesnt owe him anything else.

However, if you believe (as I do), that WC looked the other way, and then, when it became all too public, decided to sack him... they are breaching their duty of care. BEcause they should have helped him earlier, rather than looking the other way and saving their own asses when the @@@@e hit the fan.

As a caveat to all that, I am not saying that Ben hasnt neglected his duty, which is to do the right thing by the club. However, just because one person neglects their duty, doesnt give you the right to neglect your own, otherwise where would society be? Besides, Ben Cousins is just one man. Personally, I always hated him, but I think the way WC have treated him his really poor. These clubs aren't your local footy clubs, this are mulit-million dollar corporations. Yes, players are paid a lot of money, but these clubs arent a charity, they can afford to pay that much because they rake in a crap load of cash. Ben Cousins is one man, with an addiction. WC is a corporation run by highly paid executies - there should be enough decision making ability there to do the right thing by a player, whether he is an arrogant drug addict or not.

[ScottH]

Obviously common law is a bit beyond you...

I think common law is beyond most people. That's why those people wear funny wigs, to hide their confused looks.